McCain: More than coincidence that Iran hostages released on Reagan's 1st day

[Bongo Prophet]

Not much to discuss, I guess. Just thought I'd share for those who didn't think the debate on Fox worth watching -I sure didn't, but was drawn into the surreal humor of it all. Someone mentioned that we should track people as efficiently as UPS tracks packages - I was hooked.


Toward the end, this comment struck me---

John the Maverick mentioned how he would do more of the kind of diplomacy that Reagan/Poppy/Casey pulled off regarding Iran hostages.
Back deals with Iran, et al, a la (allah) october Surprise > Iran > Contra >IraqGate >etc...you know the drill.

He was real coy with the "more than coincidental" part - looked kinda proud and nostalgic about it, too.

We need to get back to that RESPONSIBLE kind of diplomacy.:sarcasm:
Oy.

Edit to add sarcasm tag. Of course we should not do this, Saint John the Maverick just advocated BFEE tactics as olde school responsible government.
Nutters all.

[CJCRANE]

1. But if the Dems

did that kind of "behind the scenes" negotiating they would be called traitors.

Sounds like McCain unwittingly admitted to the shadow govt.

[EST]

3. If they did

that kind of deal, they would be traitors!

[Bongo Prophet]

10. That is the perfect word for it, EST. Similar to the Kissinger backdoor for nixon with Vietnam.

If only people knew. This trend is a long term one.

[Bongo Prophet]

4. Shadow Gov, like love from above. Yep, he was winking and nodding, know what I mean?

I was certainly not saying Dems should emulate this.
I should go put a sarcasm tag on that one line.

Sometimes "Oy" is not enough :)

[CJCRANE]

5. I got the sarcasm.

The difference is that the Repubs negotiation wasn't in good faith or for the good of America, it was partisan and for their own benefit. In general the Dems don't play those kind of "dirty tricks" tactics to gain partisan advantage.

[Bongo Prophet]

9. I agree, dems have less of this historically, by far. At least that I know of...

Thanks CJCRANE, I just wanted to make sure you knew I didn't condone that stuff.

Now, backdoor negotiations are not uncommon, and when an admin is in office legitimately, it can be a useful tool. Even then, secret arms money and other deals have no place in an open society democratic republic. I agree with your accessment- they do nefarious shit covertly, in neither good faith nor for good of US. :hi:

[BootinUp]

2. Most of the hard work

getting them released was done by Carter months earlier. This Reagan myth is similar to the "he won the cold war myth."

[Bongo Prophet]

7. Worse than that, it was back door dealmaking that started what turned into "Iran-Contra"

I know Carter was trying through legit channels. What I speak of is more than that - it was the back channel that McCain was alluding to.
Back channel negotiations by people not even in office yet
KEEPING the hostages until that magical moment.


The MYTH of reagan regarding "Iranian hostage crisis" is that the Iranians looked Saint Ronnie in the Eye and immediately succumbed to his manliness. This was mentioned to great applause in the first GOP debate in RR Library (the POLITICO debate, with the giant AF1) THAT is the myth. What John the Maverick said was dog whistle talk, (wink wink know what I mean?) that shows that MANY GOPers KNOW ahem. And he wants to take us back to that simpler era. Nice.



While out of office, the deals were made to keep hostages until Reagan was sworn in. We would give them something in return - once Reagan got in, Iran met their part. Then a cake was sent, missiles sent, money moved...all this is history. As we funded both sides in Iraq/Iran conflict, armed muhajadeen in Afghanistan, sponsored killers in Latin America...just responsible diplomacy.


The Reagan mythology is deep and wide. With levels, many levels - more than feeble ronny even knew, I'd bet. He was losing it even then.

[BootinUp]

11. I understood that in the OP, but I don't believe it

it is nothing but a comforting theory for people who need dark imaginary forces to explain reality. McCain is taking advantage of the first myth or the second imaginary theory for pure political gain, it is not clear which untrue scenario he is referring to.

[Bongo Prophet]

14. Fair enough, and thanks for the insult!

When do you think Iran-Contra started, if not in the admitted "talks with moderate elements" either in pre-election or otherwise-- or maybe that Iran -Contra is mostly untrue? To say the deal went back that far is not such a stretch in retrospect. We know the arms/money loop happened, and at some point agreements were made with those Iranian moderates. Is that your point of contention, when the deal was "cut" like a cake?

You know the cake, right? :)

Lame joke to signify not flaming back, (even though insulted), just curious as to where you are on that. I am quite willing and capable of rational thought and weighing evidence and connecting dots. Reconnecting when evidence emerges or changes. You seem sure of your opinion, so I am curious as to what that is. i don't even want to argue with you, just want to be informed.

[BootinUp]

23. The facts and the conspiracy theories

If you haven't read up on it recently I recommend checking these links out. The basic fact is the Carter Administration was in active negotiations leading up to the release and secured the agreement for the release post election and prior to Reagan taking office. I think it is a bit absurd to suppose that they would not know of clandestine and illegal private citizen efforts to contact the Iranians, besides which private citizens have no authority to speak for our government and what makes anyone think the Iranians would take them seriously. And finally there is no factually based and reliably sourced evidence of any conspiracy.

Somewhere in these links or related wiki articles there is a discussion of what was going on in Iran and with the negotiations that sheds tremendous light on the subject for anyone truly interested in facts. Cya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy

[Bongo Prophet]

25. So when do you think Iran-contra started, and why?

Do you think Iran-Contra even happened at all? Or is it a crazy conspiracy theory too?

Reagan himself mentioned "secret negotiations" before getting into office. Maybe he spoke out of line, like McCain did.


I read the wiki links, which don't prove or disprove anything. Reasonable people may weigh testimony differently, no need for insults.


"Somewhere in there...a discussion...sheds tremendous light...for anyone TRULY interested in FACTS"

Young man, as you were 15 or so at the time, I was an adult and watched it unfold in real time. I saw the Iran contra hearings in realtime, as well as BCCI, and house floor debates. I know some people in army intelligence and on the fringe of freelance operatives. Sometimes things get done in back door fashion. Sometimes people negotiate with people outside official channels. When you disagree with someone, try to refrain from adding insults at every turn, and you will be more successful at being a self-styled moderate.

Maybe you trust Lee Hamilton's ability to get to the bottom of things, rather than repeatedly miss things.
Maybe BCCI was just a crazy set of coincidences, too.


At any rate, McCain was alluding to "more than coincidental" connections, and I just found it odd.
Thanks for the input,
We can agree that Wes Clark is a pretty good guy! :hi:

[BootinUp]

29. When Reagan and his cronies had power.

you're right insults are not necessary, however, I grow extremely weary of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and how easily they spread and occasionally I find it helpful to express some disgust over it. Its not meant to be personal though. In any event we can stop this conversation now if you like.

[Bongo Prophet]

31. It's okay, Jim4Wes, we can leave it.

I understand your frustration, some "theorists" jump the gun into irrationality far too easily. However, I find that methodology varies quite a bit from person to person, and one can be very sane and build a pretty accurate record over time. At one time Iran-contra was considered a whacko theory, but evidence built up over a few years.

This does not mean the Illuminati is involved. :)


Sure we can part in peace, no prob.
I read a few articles on your website- you have a nice way with words.
i agreed with much of it, and consider Clark to be a necessary part of rebuilding the country after the Bush mess.
Here's hoping!

cheers :hi:

[bananas]

19. Go back to sleep. nt

[BootinUp]

22. bbbbbbbrrrrring!

Sorry that was just my alarm clock, how it sounded this morning.

[Hart2008]

35. The cake was in the shape of key. They also sent a Quran.

When the Iran-Contra broke the story sounded so bizare, until former NSC Gary Sick exposed the "October surprise" to hold the hostages to humiliate Carter before the election. The reality was that Reagan and Bush had cut their own deal with the Iranians.

[rodeodance]

13. I forever hear how Reagan had them released-its an urban legand

[ck4829]

6. Of course it's not a coincidence

Are there people still pushing the idea that what Reagan did was actually scare the Iranians into releasing the hostages?

The Iranians who took the hostages for over 400 days and killed people who tried to rescue them were frightened into releasing the said hostages by a washed up actor... yeah, right.

[Bongo Prophet]

8. Yep, the GOP still gets dreamy over ALL Reagan myths.

You mention the Rescue operation - Richard Secord and Ollie North both involved in that. Turned out great, didn't it?

It is weird how myths get formed, but we get to see it in real time with Saint Ronnie.
They are/were trying with Saint W the Codpiece, but that isn't quite sitting so well these days.

[C_U_L8R]

12. Arms for Hostages was a good idea???

[Bongo Prophet]

17. That seems to be what he was implying.

Others have posted that they don't believe it to be true, that "Arms for Hostages" is an urban legend or comforting conspiracy theory.


That of course was not the point, but rather that McCain hinted at it in a pretty open way. It seemed a bit odd to have someone speak out ofhand in this way.
Wondering if others saw that or not, I decided to post the OP.

Dog whistle politics doesn't require a theory or myth or other allusions to be factual or accurate. There is a message implied for certain subgroups to "get" under the radar. Whether fundies, militias, rascists, whatever - there are signals sent. We all know this.

It hit my radar, and was recognizable as such.
Being Reaganesque is a shining beacon brass ring for GOP wannabees - and the neuroses come in many forms. :)

I know you know this, did you see the debate, and what did you think?

[flpoljunkie]

15. Yes, thought that comment was exraordinary and revealing. McCain, delusional on the surge, as well-

"The surge is working, the surge is working, the surge is working, the surge is working..."

[Bongo Prophet]

20. There was a lot of that "must repeat mantra" psychology

There are so many cracks in the audience and candidates (and Fox mods, too) that there was a real sense of psychological strain.
Nervous, cognitive dissonant jello mould, with floating fruit.
Nuclear green and glowing.

Must track people
Must build a fence
Surge is working
We like brains, must eat them.

Give it up, Jake.
It's Crazytown.

[Colobo]

16. The "Cerro Maravilla Incident" is a stain on Jimmy Carter's presidency

Of course, most Americans have never heard of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Maravilla_Incident

[Bongo Prophet]

18. I will check it out. Thanks, Katz

This is a sidethread worthy of Latin America group, and certainly Carter was not perfect. (e.g.Timor)
Did you learn about this in school? I had not heard of it, that I can recall - I was teen at the time, and waaay back then there was only newpapers and underground magazines, and microfiche. The dark ages, pre net. Glad to be HERE.:hi:
I have it open in another tab to read after work. Gracias.


Oh yeah, and
McCain is a crazy ass mofo.:)

[Colobo]

21. I'm Puerto Rican, Bongo. It's still a big deal over there.

[Bongo Prophet]

38. I finally got a chance to read the article, not sure how Carter is responsible

Because of the Justice Dept ruling in the officers' favor, the FBI, or something more directly linked to Carter that is not in the article?
I am trying to see your point that the case left a giant stain on Carter, but am not seeing direct involvement.

Tragic as the deaths of two activists are, in comparison to Timor, or Guatemala, et al- well, each life is precious.
Whether 2 or 2000...I will leave it at that.

Thanks for the link again.
Sad.

[Totally Committed]

24. I guess he never heard of Iran-Contra.

Poor, sad, delusional little man.

TC

[Bongo Prophet]

26. I think that is what he was referring to, actually, rather than forgetting it.

Agree, he is pathetic for a self-styled straight talker. The whole debate was pathetic!

He wants to deal back channel, rather than full frontal PNAC mode, maybe.
One could say that it would be better than direct war in Iran.
There's some irony.

Sometimes, like the muhajadeen set up to fight Soviets in Afghanistan, the blowback doesn't hit until decades later.
Mossadech > Shah > Khomeni and Muhajadeen > Bin Ladin > Al Qaida are two examples.

But of course all of that was conspiracy stuff too.
And conspiracies NEVER happen in the real world. :)

[Totally Committed]

27. Sorry, I was being sarcastic....

I forgot this: :sarcasm:

He's a jerk. ;)


TC

[Bongo Prophet]

28. I hear yaa TC

:)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

30. Like to see him defend his Beirut, Lebanon diplomacy

yeah he showed them... perfect response to the deadliest suicide terrorist attack ever at the time.

[Bongo Prophet]

32. It's okay if Saint Ronnie cut and run.

Just had to go into Grenada, to work it off. :)

[David Zephyr]

33. Read the book "October Surprise"

And it was more than coinidental that Iran was receiving illegal arms from the Reagan Administration just weeks after he took oath. How was all of that arranged so quickly while his staff was finding the bathrooms? In advance, of course.

George W. Bush goes to Paris and poof arms are arranged if the hostages are held until Jan. 22.

By the way, Kissinger did pretty much the same thing to poor old LBJ by double crossing him with Nixon's campaign in 1968. But he got to be Sec. of State, didn't he?

[BootinUp]

34. I guess the date of the first sale is disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#First_arms_sale

First arms sale

Michael Ledeen, a consultant of Robert McFarlane, asked Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres for help in the sale of arms to Iran.<11> The general idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons to Iran, then the US would reimburse Israel with the same weapons. The Israeli government required that the sale of arms meet high level approval from the United States government, and when Robert McFarlane convinced them that the U.S. government approved the sale, Israel obliged by agreeing to sell the arms.<11> Reagan approved McFarlane's idea to reach out to Iran on July 18, 1985 while in a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery.<12><12> In July 1985, Israel sent American-made BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missiles to Iran through an arms dealer named Manucher Ghorbanifar, a friend of Iran's Prime Minister. One hostage, the Reverend Benjamin Weir was subsequently released, despite the completed arms sale. This ultimately proved Ledeen's plan a failure<8> with only three shipments through Israel.<11>


just offering this up, I am not as well read about this as you.

[David Zephyr]

36. What I posted had nothing to do with the Iran-Contra Affair.

The weapons that that I posted about began being transferred to Iran just weeks after Reagan took office in January of 1980. Again, read the book October Surprise.

The wikipedia reference that you posted deals with the Iran-Contra affair, which although related, is a whole other story in and of itself and came later in the Reagan Administration. Much later.

[BootinUp]

37. Thanks

have you read this piece before?

From the New Republic



The Conspiracy That Wasn't

(BY STEVEN EMERSON AND JESSE FURMAN)

Few op-ed pieces prove to be as popular or long-lived as the one Gary Sick wrote for The New York Times last April. He claimed that in October 1980 officials in Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign made a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of the American hostages until after the election. In return, the United States purportedly arranged for Israel to ship weapons to Iran. The charges of an `October Surprise' weren't new. They had been circulating in the press since 1987. But Sick, who had served on Jimmy Carter's National Security Council staff and is the author of the acclaimed All Fall Down (1985), an account of the 1980 Iran hostage crisis, gave new impetus to the story. So did a show the following day by PBS's `Frontline,' in which Sick was featured.

When Sick first wrote about the release of the hostages in his book, he explained that there were several reasons they were freed in January 1981: Iranian enmity for Carter, the complications of unfreeing Iranian assets, the disorganization of the Iranian regime, and the protracted nature of U.S.-Iranian negotiations. But in his oped piece, Sick wrote that in preparation for a new book on Iran, October Surprise (to be published this month), he interviewed `hundreds of people' who told him about a secret Reagan-Bush hostage deal in 1980. What finally persuaded him was `the absence of contradictions on the key elements of the story' provided by his sources. Sick became convinced that William Casey, then Reagan's campaign manager, had met secretly in Madrid in the summer of 1980 with Iranian intermediaries to negotiate a secret deal, and that Casey and other officials met in Paris in October 1980, after which Iran broke off negotiations with the Carter administration. Sick also wrote that three of his sources saw then Vice President George Bush in Paris as well, but that `in the absence of further information, I have not made up my mind about this allegation.'

The Sick piece and the `Frontline' story prompted a spate of alarmed editorials, an indignant request from former President Carter for a `blue-ribbon panel' to investigate the charges, and congressional inquiries into the October Surprise.

But the truth is, the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication. None of the evidence cited to support the October Surprise stands up to scrutiny. The key sources on whose word the story rests are documented frauds and imposters. Representing themselves as intelligence operatives, they have concocted allegations that are demonstrably false, and their stories, full of internal inconsistencies, are also contradictory. Almost every primary source cited by Sick or `Frontline' has been indicted or was the subject of a federal investigation prior to claiming to be a `participant' in the October Surprise. Finally, evidence we have uncovered shows that William Casey and George Bush could not have been present at the meetings alleged by the sources.

continued...scroll down to the article.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h911104-october2.htm

[NewYorkerfromMass]

39. So this doesn't mean it didn't happen

although the chances are better the Iranians only sought to embarrass Carter.

[BootinUp]

40. The main reason

I posted in this thread was to question why this myth seemed to be accepted as fact by so many posters. Not to speculate, but it is a different day so here goes. I think you have an interesting theory, but it seems more likely to me that internal pressures in Iran kept the hostages from being released sooner. That is the leaders were trying to save face. And the people involved in constructing these fantasies about secret meetings undoubtedly have their own motives which one could also speculate about.